Re: 3028bis: post-meeting changes

[Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@xxxxxxxxx>]

Philip Guenther wrote:

> 3. IANA template
>
> I think we should simply drop the "Capability name" and "Capability
> arguments" fields, leaving:
The proposal from the meeting was:
Have a require capability name.
Have a short description of what an extension does.
Have separate lists for all new tests/actions/etc., so that we can avoid 
incompatible action/test/etc. names between multiple extensions.

>   Capability keyword:
>   Standards Track/IESG-approved experimental RFC number:
>   Person and email address to contact for further information:
>
> As I see it, there are two major concerns for the registry:
> 1) capabilities should be unique, so that require "foo" has the
>    same meaning everywhere it works
> 2) given a standardized capability, you need to be able to find
>    the current RFC describing it
>
> Concerns about different capabilities enabling the same action or
> test are better addressed, IMHO, by reexamining the naming and
> review policy for the registry.
I still think have a single true place for listing all actions/tests is 
a good thing.